Evidence

[Trailblazer]

If their claims are not the evidence, what exactly is the evidence that they are a Messenger, their claims about God and the soul and their prophecies/miracles are true, and that God exists?

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

In addition to what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' .....

Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies that refer to the return of Christ and the promised Messiah. That proves to me he was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[Trailblazer]

And when the Bible says he did, he really didn't. The people made that up... not God, of course, but that God spoke.

That is correct, Imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is a guess and what you believe. And I don't valid argument you can make to back up what you assert here. The Bible itself isn't anthropomorphic, but gods, as depicted in both the Bible and the Baha'i texts, are anthropomorphic.

No, God as depicted in the Baha'i Writings is NOT anthropomorphic. Turning God into a man is just stupid, so absurd.

You are calling those who claim God speaks to all people liars. Either they are correct, or you are correct, you both can't be correct.

No, I am not calling them liars just because I disagree with them.
You disagree with me on lots of things but that does not mean you are calling me a liar.

 

[F1fan]

"what they believe IS evidence"

And it is "TO THEM". I haven't seen any poster saying or demanding you should accept what is evidence to them or anything else as they do.

Their evidence is on par with children who believe in Santa Claus. Children hear about Santa existing from their elders, they find presents under the tree that are From: Santa. That's pretty convincing, just as religious concepts are convincing to young peovle when repeated long enough through their development. Children don;t subject these ideas to scrutiny since they haven't learned the cognitive tools to do it. And they learn not to question religious ideas, which helps them retain them in adulthood. Religious belief becomes a matter of habit.

Theists might not be saying overtly that we must accept their reasons for belief, but it certainly is implied given the repetition of their beliefs/claims, and their indifference to the usual standard of credible evidence. They seem to want something from critical thinkers, and perhaps that is validation.

Don't you find it odd that members will post their beliefs with no intention to demonstrate to others how well reasoned and valid they are?

 

[CG Didymus]

And honestly, even though the religion promotes unity

When Baha'is learn to actually promote unity between people with different beliefs, I'll accept that as evidence that they might have something.

 

[Trailblazer]

And this is a perfect example of what @It Aint Necessarily So called a "just-so excuse." It is a narrative that has exactly one thing going for it -- that it explains what you want explained. Unfortunately, what it lacks is a single reason, outside your need to reduce your level of cognitive dissonance, to give it any credence whatever.

It is not what I want explained, it is what I believe according to what has been explained in the Baha'i Writings.
There is no reason for you or anyone who is not a Baha'i to give it any credence, just as there is no reason for me to give any credence to a God who needs excuses for what He chooses to do.

To me, nothing could be more ridiculous than a God who needs excuses just because He does not do things the way you expect Him to do them. What that amounts to is a human who thinks they know more than God about how things should be done, which is not only arrogant but also logically impossible since no human is all-knowing, only God is all-knowing. That really puts atheists in a bind if they acknowledge it but since they refuse to look at it and that side-skirt it whenever I mention it in a post, they think they are still sitting pretty, saying what God should be doing, as if they could ever know more than God.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

When Baha'is learn to actually promote unity between people with different beliefs, I'll accept that as evidence that they might have something.

Yeah, I get it. Saying you promote unity and actually doing something about it are completely different things. It seems Baha'is try to promote unity by mischaracterizing Hinduism and Buddhism as monotheistic religions. It would actually make the Baha'is stronger if they cut their ties with Dharmic religions, given the fact that the Baha'is are Abrahamic and not viewed as an eastern religion. Most Hindus and Buddhists are not monotheistic, but Baha'is pretend that all religions come from the same God and then promote that as their unity.

Let's not try to McDonaldize the theological community, okay? There isn't a 'one size fits all' policy like they suggest.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, I get it. Saying you promote unity and actually doing something about it are completely different things.

To me, promoting unity is not agreeing with people of other religions on things we disagree with, that is dishonest.
Promoting unity is trying to get along with people in a spirit of harmony despite our different beliefs.

BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY

 

[CG Didymus]

Yeah, I get it. Saying you promote unity and actually doing something about it are completely different things. It seems Baha'is try to promote unity by mischaracterizing Hinduism and Buddhism as monotheistic religions. It would actually make the Baha'is stronger if they cut their ties with Dharmic religions, given the fact that the Baha'is are Abrahamic and not viewed as an eastern religion. Most Hindus and Buddhists are not monotheistic, but Baha'is pretend that all religions come from the same God and then promote that as their unity.

Let's not try to McDonaldize the theological community, okay? There isn't a 'one size fits all' policy like they suggest.

It's too late. Baha'u'llah didn't mention Krishna and the Buddha. They got added in later. But then Baha'is had to make some adjustments. Like manifestation instead of incarnations. No reincarnation and no multiple Gods and then they say that Buddha did teach about a God. However, the main Baha'i teaching about all the other religions is that they are the fulfillment of all of them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most Hindus and Buddhists are not monotheistic, but Baha'is pretend that all religions come from the same God and then promote that as their unity.

Baha'is do not pretend that all religions come from the same God, we believe that all religions come from the same God.
If other religious believers won't allow Baha'is to have their own beliefs, who is promoting the disunity?

 

[CG Didymus]

Saying you promote unity and actually doing something about it are completely different things.

Here's a little bit from TB"s link...

Likewise, when you meet those whose opinions differ from your own, do not turn away your face from them. All are seeking truth, and there are many roads leading thereto. Truth has many aspects, but it remains always and forever one.
Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and strife in your hearts.
Rather, search diligently for the truth and make all men your friends.​

 

[muhammad_isa]

Actually, I very much do believe the universe was intended by some force of reason. I just don't claim there is evidence for it, because there isn't. If there were, there would be no atheists.

How do you work that one out?
Are all people honest? No.

..and that goes for believers as well as disbelievers.
People claim all sorts of things. They are not all true.

If you don't believe in Jesus or Muhammad, it might be because you have little knowledge about them .. it might be that you would rather "stay as you are" .. it might be for a whole host of reasons.
..and God knows those reasons, often better than we do ourselves.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Their evidence is on par with children who believe in Santa Claus..

How immature, to suggest that the Qur'an might have been written by children, as for any evidence is concerned.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

It's too late. Baha'u'llah didn't mention Krishna and the Buddha. They got added in later.

I did not know that.

But then Baha'is had to make some adjustments. Like manifestation instead of incarnations. No reincarnation and no multiple Gods and then they say that Buddha did teach about a God. However, the main Baha'i teaching about all the other religions is that they are the fulfillment of all of them.

Thus making all the other religions redundant.

Baha'is do not pretend that all religions come from the same God, we believe that all religions come from the same God.

I can kind of see how this works, but why would God want to represent as other names, descriptions, ideas like in Hinduism or be ignored in Buddhism as many Buddhists are atheist or nontheistic? It sounds like your God, Baha, is trying to trick or deceive people.

If other religious believers won't allow Baha'is to have their own beliefs, who is promoting the disunity?

I am allowing to have your own beliefs, but I am critical of them. Freedom of religion is in many countries which the Baha'i Faith has established sovereignty. There's a Baha'i temple in Wilmette, IL. By what means are you not allowed to have your own beliefs?

Here's a little bit from TB"s link...

Likewise, when you meet those whose opinions differ from your own, do not turn away your face from them. All are seeking truth, and there are many roads leading thereto. Truth has many aspects, but it remains always and forever one.
Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and strife in your hearts.
Rather, search diligently for the truth and make all men your friends.​

I actually clicked on the link and skimmed it. Abdul'Baha is a very well-spoken individual. I like both what Baha'u'llah and Abdul'Baha has to say for the most part.

 

[YoursTrue]

I so get it. My early life was very similar, except that I abandoned any idea of prayer really early, and never went near any sort of religious notion again.

So you don't want to find out or seek to see if there is a God, is that right? When I was younger I was so confused that I didn't really know anything (hardly anyone taught me, anyway even though I went to various places of worship), and I didn't know much about God and His purpose. Even the "Lord's Prayer" had little meaning for me beyond hearing the words and figuring someone was praying somewhere for something, only God knows what because I sure didn't. But later -- well later -- things changed. Anyway, have a good evening.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

What specific things should I read about the particular messenger? I know a lot of Jesus' story to admire and even believe the story was based on a true spiritual teacher, but the claims of his supposed miracles and resurrection are just that, claims. As are Muhammad's supposed miracles and visits with an angel. As are whatever Baha'u'ullah's story has.

I decided to repost what I wrote in another thread because I believe it is also appropriate for this thread. I suspect that what I said about Jesus could also apply to Muhammad and Baha'u'llah. I suspect that some stories about these religious teachers were most likely embellished by their followers in order to make them appear to be more than what they actually were when they were alive.

The following paragraphs are what I wrote in my other post.

In my opinion, assuming that a religious man named Yehoshua (Yeshua, Jesus) even existed in biblical times, then it's most likely that his followers embellished the stories about him, and more embellishment and folklore were later added to these stories to make him appear to be more than he actually was. It's possible that he was simply a well-liked religious teacher whose loyal followers spread false stories about him to make him appear godlike. I also think that it's likely that a few stories about him were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other pagan religions as well, which predate both Christianity and the Bible. I think the stories about Jesus were greatly impacted by paganism, and as I explained in other posts (such as this one), paganism also greatly influenced Christianity.

The savior story of Jesus isn't the first of its kind, and in my opinion, it isn't any more believable than all the other savior stories that predate his, such as "10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus" and "Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ." In fact, these articles provide several more examples of pagan Christlike figures whose lives parallel Jesus', including being born of a virgin, experiencing the devil's temptation before beginning an earthly ministry, healing the sick miraculously, dying to atone for humanity, descending into the underworld after death, and being resurrected from the dead after three days. The stories of Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection are similar to those of Attis, the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation (1250 BCE). According to the stories of Attis, he was divinely born of a virgin; he was hung on a tree and died; he descended into the underworld after his death; he was resurrected after three days; and he brought salvation with him upon his rebirth. The article "Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days" contains further stories about Attis and Jesus that share a few more similarities.

In my personal opinion, these other stories of Christlike figures demonstrate that some of the stories of Jesus were influenced a lot by paganism and that Christianity isn't unique in its beliefs, despite the claims by Christians that the Bible is divinely inspired by God and that Christianity is the only true religion in the world. Personally, I don't believe that Christianity is the only true religion in the world.

Actually, I very much do believe the universe was intended by some force of reason. I just don't claim there is evidence for it, because there isn't. If there were, there would be no atheists.

As I said in my previous post in this thread (read it here), I don't believe that the existence of God can be proven or disproved. In my personal opinion, I believe that we—meaning you, me, and everyone else (including Christians)—make decisions on whether or not to believe in God, in other deities, or in anything else supernatural based on the limited knowledge that we have. What do you think?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here's a little bit from TB"s link...

Likewise, when you meet those whose opinions differ from your own, do not turn away your face from them. All are seeking truth, and there are many roads leading thereto. Truth has many aspects, but it remains always and forever one.
Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and strife in your hearts.
Rather, search diligently for the truth and make all men your friends.​

You know, I notice the repeated use of the word "truth" here -- and you might notice from just under my avatar my believe that "Truth isn't a thing."

There are many versions of "truth." For example, the mathematical and physical formulae that can't be refuted, simply because there are formal proofs. There's the matter of the "truth" of the statement "you don't love my anymore" between a husband and wife, when in fact they're dealing with behaviours, not truths. A man can be totally focused on football, and still love his wife, after all, while she may not feel loved while his attention is directed so resolutely away from her (this is especially true within the first weeks and months of marriage).

In religion, how do you find "truth?" What Christians say about Jesus is not anything like what Muslims say about "Issa." Which is true, and how do you know? It gets even murkier when you compare what religion says about aspects of human nature and behaviour with what science says about them. Is the United Church of Canada (Christian, Protestant) correct that gay couples should be married, or are various Islamic edicts correct sayng that they should be killed? (Or maybe it's both -- marry them, then kill them. That would be weird, but perfectly logical to some religious thinkers! )

Really, I think people need to spend a hell of a lot more time thinking hard about this idea of "truth."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you don't want to find out or seek to see if there is a God, is that right? When I was younger I was so confused that I didn't really know anything (hardly anyone taught me, anyway even though I went to various places of worship), and I didn't know much about God and His purpose. Even the "Lord's Prayer" had little meaning for me beyond hearing the words and figuring someone was praying somewhere for something, only God knows what because I sure didn't. But later -- well later -- things changed. Anyway, have a good evening.

No, I "don't want to find out or seek to see if there is a God." Neither do I want to find out and seek if there is a tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Sauron or Saruman, banshees, trolls, elves, goblins (and hobgoblins), Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Jinn, demons, Satan, Loch Ness monsters, Yetis, Bigfoot or Chupacabras.

And every one of them for the very same reason.

Now, in that context -- what would make you want to seek to see if there is a God, and not a Yeti?

 

[We Never Know]

Their evidence is on par with children who believe in Santa Claus. Children hear about Santa existing from their elders, they find presents under the tree that are From: Santa. That's pretty convincing, just as religious concepts are convincing to young peovle when repeated long enough through their development. Children don;t subject these ideas to scrutiny since they haven't learned the cognitive tools to do it. And they learn not to question religious ideas, which helps them retain them in adulthood. Religious belief becomes a matter of habit.

Theists might not be saying overtly that we must accept their reasons for belief, but it certainly is implied given the repetition of their beliefs/claims, and their indifference to the usual standard of credible evidence. They seem to want something from critical thinkers, and perhaps that is validation.

Don't you find it odd that members will post their beliefs with no intention to demonstrate to others how well reasoned and valid they are?

"Don't you find it odd that members will post their beliefs with no intention to demonstrate to others how well reasoned and valid they are"

Why should anyone have to prove THEIR belief to YOU? Its THEIR belief.

Lets use your ham sandwich story. I ate a ham sandwich last week. There is no more ham in my fridge. You can't pump my stomach and find ham.... to you there is no evidence I ate a ham sandwich last week but guess what? I did eat one. My evidence is I had ham, I made a sandwich and I ate it. That is my evidence for my self. I don't care if you accept or believe I ate a ham sandwich last week.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Don't you find it odd that members will post their beliefs with no intention to demonstrate to others how well reasoned and valid they are"

Why should anyone have to prove THEIR belief to YOU? Its THEIR belief.

If you had followed through the thread at least I, and I am pretty sure others, have stated that if the OP, who has now left, had simply said "this is my belief" he would have been left alone. The discussion kept going and got a bit heated due to claims of evidence for the Bahai beliefs. I will say it again, If one just volunteers "These are my beliefs . . . " people would have let that person be. If one says "these are my beliefs and I have evidence" and then only posts dogma at best, that causes a bit of a ruckus.